In the article, What is a Family, by Pauline Irit Erera, an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work, does not seek to define what a family is, despite the title of the article. Erera seeks to explore the backlash against the diverse family and argues that the family cannot require cookie cutter dynamics in order to be accepted as a family.Erera does well in supporting her claim by giving background on the traditional family, identifying what caused a diverse shift in the family dynamic and providing counterargument for backlash against diverse families. She argues that "the family is not simply a social institution. It is an ideological construct laden with symbolism and with a history and politics of its own" (Erera 417).
Erera Focuses on the definition of a family and its various forms in What Is a Family. She states that while taking a deeper look into families it is important to understand the many differences that occur within family dynamics. Erera makes it a point to define and give background on what the traditional family is. In that, she introduces George Peter Murdock, who is an anthropologist. She adds that based on a survey, Murdock believes "family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." (Rpt in Erera 417). She interjects that his definition of a family, caused the coining of the term “nuclear family”. Erera provides the background of the family definition in order to move towards her point, which is that with all of the diversity in the world, that of cohabitation, polygamy, and more, there can not be a singular definition of a family. Erera speaks of "the heyday of the traditional family" (418). She says that the traditional roles of men and women were that of "breadwinner-husband and homemaker-wife" (418). Erera believes that the diversity of families began with the cutting of taxes and the cutting of spending on services that provided aid to the family. Due to those cutes the woman's house-maker role was diminished. Women were forced to work for necessities. Along with that, the technological developments allowed for the women's liberation movement, which gave way for birth control, abortion, and acceptance in sexual behavior. With those movements, more job opportunities opened up for women, and they became more independent. Erera argues that with new freedom came backlash. The diversity within the family was blamed for things like AIDS, child poverty, low education standards, substance abuse, high homicide rates, infertility, teen homicide rate, and narcism (421). Erera makes it a point to defend the diverse family in saying that those aspects were not entirely cause by the diversity in family. She blames the backlash on hatred of the independence of the woman and the need to restore the role of fathers. In addition she blames the backlash on a decline in welfare benefits and also on the fathers who feel they are doing their job but are really paying less that half of the money the it takes to raise a child. In defense of the family values proponets, and says that the nuclear family, that the family values agenda supports, leaves out other forms of diversity and does not offer an alternative to real life change.
Erera makes a point, that the traditional role of the family was impossible. She argues that the requirements of the traditional family seemed to match those of what was shown on television. She says that “such programs symbolized a definition of ideal family life that was widely shared in that decade.” ( Erera 418). She makes this claim to provide back ground of family values. She moves on to her next claim with cushion from her first. Erera states that what was advertised on the television was not what the families of every day where like by the 1960’s. Erera claims that the economy of the 1960’s caused the whirlwind of shift in what constitutes a family. She says the “government backed home mortgages financed many of the new family homes” and “large numbers of workers joined unions, received pensions and health benefits”(419). With this background she claims that once taxes were cut and aid for public works were cut, “women’s employment more a matter of necessity than of choice”(419). Erera says that with those changes family diversity began. Because of the backlash of family diversity, Erera also claims the ideals imposed by proponents of family values exclude room for diversity. Most supporters of family values agenda believe that a family is “a heterosexual, conjugal, nuclear, domestic unit, ideally one breadwinner, female homemaker, and their dependent offspring” as a family (422). Erera disagrees and counters that the agenda “obscures racial, class, and sexual diversity in domestic arrangements” (422-423).
Pauline Erera makes good point throughout her article on what constitutes a family. She takes the time, at the beginning of the article to make sure that the reader understands the history behind where the idea of a nuclear family started by quoting George Peter Murdock. She sufficiently supported her belief that the family has changed and cannot be applied to the original definition of a family. Erera provides enough background on what caused the change.
Erera, Pauline I. "What is a Family" Family Diversity: Continuity and Change in Contemporary Family pp. 1-15 Copyright 2002 by Sage Publications, Inc. Books. Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers, 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J.Kennedy. Boston; Pearson 2009. 416-27. Print.
.
1. Carmen Thompson
2. Terrell Shorty
3.Shafial Mason
4.
5.
In the article, What is a Family, by Pauline Irit Erera, an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work, does not seek to define what a family is, despite the title of the article. Erera seeks to explore the backlash against the diverse family and argues that the family cannot require cookie cutter dynamics in order to be accepted as a family. Erera does well in supporting her claim by giving background on the traditional family, identifying what caused a diverse shift in the family dynamic and providing counterargument for backlash against diverse families. She argues that "the family is not simply a social institution. It is an ideological construct laden with symbolism and with a history and politics of its own" (Erera 417).
Erera Focuses on the definition of a family and its various forms in What Is a Family. She states that while taking a deeper look into families it is important to understand the many differences that occur within family dynamics. Erera makes it a point to define and give background on what the traditional family is. In that, she introduces George Peter Murdock, who is an anthropologist. She adds that based on a survey, Murdock believes "family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." (Rpt in Erera 417). She interjects that his definition of a family, caused the coining of the term “nuclear family”. Erera provides the background of the family definition in order to move towards her point, which is that with all of the diversity in the world, that of cohabitation, polygamy, and more, there can not be a singular definition of a family. Erera speaks of "the heyday of the traditional family" (418). She says that the traditional roles of men and women were that of "breadwinner-husband and homemaker-wife" (418). Erera believes that the diversity of families began with the cutting of taxes and the cutting of spending on services that provided aid to the family. Due to those cutes the woman's house-maker role was diminished. Women were forced to work for necessities. Along with that, the technological developments allowed for the women's liberation movement, which gave way for birth control, abortion, and acceptance in sexual behavior. With those movements, more job opportunities opened up for women, and they became more independent. Erera argues that with new freedom came backlash. The diversity within the family was blamed for things like AIDS, child poverty, low education standards, substance abuse, high homicide rates, infertility, teen homicide rate, and narcism (421). Erera makes it a point to defend the diverse family in saying that those aspects were not entirely cause by the diversity in family. She blames the backlash on hatred of the independence of the woman and the need to restore the role of fathers. In addition she blames the backlash on a decline in welfare benefits and also on the fathers who feel they are doing their job but are really paying less that half of the money the it takes to raise a child. In defense of the family values proponets, and says that the nuclear family, that the family values agenda supports, leaves out other forms of diversity and does not offer an alternative to real life change.
Erera makes a point, that the traditional role of the family was impossible. She argues that the requirements of the traditional family seemed to match those of what was shown on television. She says that “such programs symbolized a definition of ideal family life that was widely shared in that decade.” ( Erera 418). She makes this claim to provide back ground of family values. She moves on to her next claim with cushion from her first. Erera states that what was advertised on the television was not what the families of every day where like by the 1960’s. Erera claims that the economy of the 1960’s caused the whirlwind of shift in what constitutes a family. She says the “government backed home mortgages financed many of the new family homes” and “large numbers of workers joined unions, received pensions and health benefits”(419). With this background she claims that once taxes were cut and aid for public works were cut, “women’s employment more a matter of necessity than of choice”(419). Erera says that with those changes family diversity began. Because of the backlash of family diversity, Erera also claims the ideals imposed by proponents of family values exclude room for diversity. Most supporters of family values agenda believe that a family is “a heterosexual, conjugal, nuclear, domestic unit, ideally one breadwinner, female homemaker, and their dependent offspring” as a family (422). Erera disagrees and counters that the agenda “obscures racial, class, and sexual diversity in domestic arrangements” (422-423).
Pauline Erera makes good point throughout her article on what constitutes a family. She takes the time, at the beginning of the article to make sure that the reader understands the history behind where the idea of a nuclear family started by quoting George Peter Murdock. She sufficiently supported her belief that the family has changed and cannot be applied to the original definition of a family. Erera provides enough background on what caused the change.
Erera, Pauline I. "What is a Family" Family Diversity: Continuity and Change in Contemporary Family pp. 1-15 Copyright 2002 by Sage Publications, Inc. Books.
Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers, 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J.Kennedy. Boston; Pearson 2009. 416-27. Print.
.